Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (description, linked-data, exhibition count, graph relations), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations' safety flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one organization by slug') and efficiently lists content and examples. No redundant or extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output. It lists key return fields, though could mention that the response may be null if slug not found (implied by openWorldHint). Still, sufficient for a single-param lookup.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema only defines 'slug' as a required string with no description. The description provides meaning by stating 'by slug' and listing organization types, adding context beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it retrieves an organization by slug, specifies the types (school, gallery, museum, association), and lists returned data (description, linked-data, exhibition count, graph relations). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_artist or get_exhibition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool to get an organization by slug. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the single required parameter and clear purpose make usage straightforward. Sibling tools are listed, providing implicit alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.